About the meaning of interpersonal ties. From the marital tie to the

About the meaning of interpersonal ties...
103
doi: 10.23734/wwr20161.103.116
„Wychowanie w Rodzinie” t. XIII (1/2016)
nadesłany: 15.10.2015 r. – przyjęty: 25.04.2016 r.
Maja PIOTROWSKA∗
About the meaning of interpersonal ties.
From the marital tie to the familial one
O znaczeniu więzi międzyludzkich. Od więzi
małżeńskiej do więzi rodzicielskiej
Streszczenie
Umiejętność dobierania się w pary ma ogromne znaczenie dla całego późniejszego
życia dwojga ludzi, a odczuwane przez partnerów związku zadowolenie i szczęście
gwarantują jego trwałość. Silna i trwała więź małżeńska jest niezastąpionym fundamentem więzi rodzinnej. W prezentowanym artykule analizuję ewolucję bliskiej relacji
interpersonalnej między partnerami (od partnerstwa – przez małżeństwo – po rodzinę)
oraz wskazuję na wagę licznych czynników, tj. miłość, bliskość, podobieństwo partnerów, atrakcyjność fizyczna, wzajemne lubienie się i uzupełnianie się oraz kompetencje,
jakie partnerzy ci posiadają w konstytuowaniu się wzajemnej więzi – podstawy budującej przyszłą rodzinę. Więź małżeńska jest podstawą i szczególnym rodzajem więzi rodzinnej. Proces kształtowania się więzi rozpoczyna się z chwilą tworzenia rodziny.
Oboje małżonkowie wnoszą do związku takie czynniki więzi, jak: wzajemną miłość,
cechy charakteru, system wartości oraz warunki materialne. Wspólne życie prowadzi
do wypracowania kolejnych elementów składających się na więź, do których możemy
zaliczyć wzajemną wyrozumiałość, tolerancję, zaufanie, wspólne cele, zainteresowania,
posiadanie dzieci. Dzięki istnieniu poczucia więzi w rodzinie jednostka może zaspokajać wszelkie potrzeby, od biologicznych począwszy, przez społeczne do psychicznych,
dążąc do osiągania określonych wartości.
Słowa kluczowe: więź małżeńska, więź rodzinna, miłość, rodzina.
∗
[email protected]
Instytut Pedagogiki, Uniwersytet Wrocławski, pl. Dawida 1, 50-527 Wrocław, Polska.
Maja PIOTROWSKA
104
Abstract
The ability of creating couples is greatly important for the whole future life of two
people, and the satisfaction and happiness felt by the partners in a relationship guarantees its durability. In the present article, I analyze the evolution of the close interpersonal relations between the two sides (of the partnership – through marriage – and after
in the family). The marital bond is the basis and a special kind of a family bond. The
bond formation process begins at the moment of creating the family. Both spouses
bring to the relationship factors such as: mutual love, character traits, a system of values
and material conditions. Living together leads to the development of further elements of
the bond which can include: mutual understanding, tolerance, trust, shared goals, interests, and having children. Thanks to the existence of a sense of family ties, an individual is able to meet all their needs, ranging from biological, social to the psychological
ones, and reaching to achieve the specified values.
Keywords: marital tie, familial tie, love, family.
“It’s the family that decides where we come from,
Where the beginning of our social existence is,
We’re not people out of nowhere, without roots in any culture
Places where we, our parents and our grandparents were born,
Determine our own point on the map of this spacious world.”
(H. Izdebska, Więź rodzinna (Eng. Family Tie))
Introduction
Twenty-four centuries ago, Aristotle argued that people – men and women – are
naturally created to live together as couples. This combination of beings of the opposite sex, who cannot exist without each other, creates a home, therefore a family.
The ability to form a couple is greatly important for the whole future life of
two people, and the satisfaction and happiness felt by the partners in a relationship guarantee its durability. Virginia Satir indicates that each couple consists of
three parts: two individual units (you and I), and the relationship that exists between them (us). “We” occurs when partners establish contact with each other.
That is the moment from when they experience the joys, pleasures, and sometimes difficulties of being together, of making decisions together and functioning
as a part of a larger system. “If the relationship between the partners is right,
each of parts has enough space for itself, and each of them is equally important”1. In such situations we do not deal with the so-called objectification, limitation, or appropriation of a partner. I think that the author wanted to draw attention to the crucial issue of being together in a subjective way; to the possibility
of creating an optimal relationship between a man and a woman, in which respect for the autonomy, independence and uniqueness of the other person is the
1
V. Satir, Terapia rodziny, Gdańskie Wydawnictwo Psychologiczne, Gdańsk 2000, p. 297.
About the meaning of interpersonal ties...
105
basis for a successful relationship. A similar message, in my opinion, is that of
the philosophy of dialogue – suggested by Martin Buber. His well-known statement: you are you and I am I, if we meet it is great – captures the essence of
relationships between people, where there is no compulsion and no danger of
losing one’s freedom, where “each of the two perceives the other one in that way
and therefore in the same way he or she communicates; one does not consider
and treat the other as an object, but as a partner in a life event”2.
Partnership and Love
The creation of closer interpersonal relationships between men and women
is affected (apart from a subjective perception of a partner) by other factors, such
as: proximity, similarity of partners, physical attractiveness, mutual liking, and
complementarities or competences that the partners have3. When the relationships
between both partners get deeper, a feeling of love is “born” between them.
Love has a central place in human life. However, does the liquid concept of
modernity somehow devalue the meaning of love nowadays? Has the name:
“love” lost its former importance and meaning? Do not we use it too hastily and
too often, therefore making its sense empty? Apparently, “the presence of love
transforms us when we experience it and absorbs our longing, when it is absent”4. As anthropologists assume love is experienced in all cultures and each
language has a word for its determination. “It is an integral part of the human
experience, accessible to every person”5. The most well-known concept, designed to give a scientific tone to this feeling, is the “Three-component concept
of love” by Robert Sternberg, according to which the phenomenon of love consists of three components: intimacy, passion and commitment. Intimacy is expressed by means of attachment and interdependence between the partners. Passion, on the other hand, is determined by strong emotions, both positive such as
joy, desire or tenderness, and negative, manifested in pain, jealousy and longing.
Commitment – also called in this concept “an attachment” means the decisions
and actions made to transform a relationship of love into a lasting relationship
and to allow it to continue, even in spite of the obstacles6. Love is the force that
binds two people who want to create something that will allow them to go
2
M. Buber, Między osobą a osobą, [in:] J. Steward (ed.), Mosty zamiast murów, Wydawnictwo
Naukowe PWN, Warszawa 2007, p. 596.
3
Compare: D. Dwyer, Bliskie relacje interpersonalne, Gdańskie Wydawnictwo Psychologiczne,
Gdańsk 2005.
4
D.M. Buss, Ewolucja pożądania. Strategie doboru seksualnego ludzi, Gdańskie Wydawnictwo
Psychologiczne, Gdańsk 1996, p. 10.
5
Ibidem, p. 10.
6
B. Wojciszke, Człowiek wśród ludzi. Zarys psychologii społecznej, Wydawnictwo Naukowe
PWN, Warszawa 2002, pp. 8–16.
Maja PIOTROWSKA
106
through life together and to face any adversity. According to Erich Fromm there
is no thing called “love.” In fact, there is only an act of love. Love is a creative
activity. It assumes care, knowledge, response, affirmation and joy. Fromm believes that “love is the only way in the act of fusion to find out the answer to my
question. In the act of love, in the act of giving oneself, in the act of transpiring
each other, I find myself, I discover myself, I find both of us, I find a human
being”7. A similar statement on the subject of love was described by Zygmunt
Bauman who argues that “love finds its meaning not in the desire of things that
are not finished, complete and finite, but in the desire to participate in becoming
and creating these things. Love is something of transcendence; it is just the name
of the creative impulse, which is why it is risky because, like with any other act
of creation, we can never be sure where it will lead us”8.
Love is, above all, an attitude towards the other person; “it is a form of relationship with others, the most important theme of human life that determines the
happiness of oneself. It is an attitude that respects the dignity of another person,
and recognizes one’s equality”9.
Love and marriage
The feeling of love between a man and a woman often leads to the decision
to get married. Love and marriage are connected to each other in every human
society. “According to the ideal, marriage is the end of romance, but it is also the
beginning of a more serious undertaking, and this truth is expressed in all societies, in their laws and regulations relating to marriage”10.
Each partner brings to the relationship a system of values, beliefs and habits
from their own, sometimes very different families. Such a legacy of their own
families has a significant impact on their relationship. They also bring their masculinity and femininity. From all of these they try to work out a common relation, a common bond, and to create a new “home”. Partners love (marriage) is
a mutual commitment to people and an act of entrusting their – lonely until nowlives in all its existential dimensions to another person. It differs from other
kinds of love (parental or fraternal) by an action, full of hope and commitment,
directed towards a common future11. It is no wonder that we often talk about
7
E. Fromm, O sztuce miłości, Dom Wydawniczy „Rebis”, Poznań 2006, p. 41.
Z. Bauman, Razem osobno, Wydawnictwo Literackie, Kraków 2003, pp. 16–17.
9
M. Ryś, O miłości, małżeństwie i rodzinie, Wydawnictwo „Adam”, Warszawa 1998, p. 204.
10
B. Malinowski, Małżeństwo, pokrewieństwo, [in:] G. Godlewski, L. Kolankiewicz, A. Mencwel,
P. Rodak (ed.), Antropologia kultury. Zagadnienia i wybór tekstów, Wydawnictwo Naukowe
PWN, Warszawa 2005, p. 303.
11
See: E. Rydz, Refleksje wokół psychologii i etyki miłości, [in:] H. Liberska, M. Matuszewska
(ed.), Małżeństwo: męskość, kobiecość, miłość, konflikt, Wydawnictwo Fundacji Humaniora,
Poznań 2001.
8
About the meaning of interpersonal ties...
107
marital love as a meeting of “two different worlds”, “two different personalities,
two unique personalities who decide to spend the future together”12. Creating
a community of marriage is a long, dynamic process of physical, emotional and
spiritual unification of a man and a woman.
Many people forget that love is also hard, systematic work on oneself,
a good interpersonal-communication school and a lesson about reaching a compromise. Bogdan Suchodolski reminds us about such notion of love by claiming that:
“[...] the love of two people – especially when it is recognized by the institutional framework of a family – is both a difficult and happy school of living
together. Its base, but at the same time its result is what we used to call peace
of heart. It includes many things, but above all the durability of feelings and
the ability to empathize with the inner life of another person. Thanks to those
features it builds a solid bridge of agreements and synergisms. It silences the
anxieties and fears, leads to the time of peace. Selfishness and egotism are
dealt with in a lively and direct community. The myth of narcissism, understood as focusing on one’s mirror reflection, loses its impact. Ties of loneliness are broken”13.
The marital love should be characterized by a real feeling that Erich
Fromm14 describes as “a mature love.” It is an effective focus on matters of life
and the development of a loved person, the responsibility for meeting his/her
needs resulting from the care and concern. Such a love is expressed by respect
and acceptance for the unique individuality of the object of love and a good
knowledge of oneself and one’s partner. A mature love speaks out by saying:
“I need you because I love you.” The latter two definitions of love are most appealing to me. In fact they show the whole notion, the essence of what, in my
opinion, we are trying to capture in the concept of love which is beautiful, but
sometimes used too often by people. These two definitions of love also indicate
that love, expressed and realized, “healthy” in its essence leads to the creation of
a “healthy” relationship in which we deal with an intimate contact between two
adults who are both self-conscious and mature to love and give love to other
people. The words of Albert M. Geelman can become an excellent exemplification of the above characteristics of the “healthy relationship.” Geelman claims
that a healthy relationship should:
“[...] rely on spontaneous contact. That contact and the experience of intimacy
should result in joy and happiness. Both sides proportionally feel their mutual
responsibility. They express and feel respect for each other the way they are at
the moment. So they do not expect changing themselves in order to feel the
closeness and love. At any time of their relationship they can rely on the fact
12
M. Ziemska, Rodzina a osobowość, Wiedza Powszechna, Warszawa 1977, p. 53.
B. Suchodolski, Kształt życia, Wydawnictwo „Nasza Księgarnia”, Warszawa 1982, pp. 195–196.
14
E. Fromm, O sztuce miłości..., op. cit.
13
108
Maja PIOTROWSKA
that they will be close to each other in spite of what happens in them and
around them. They can show their weaknesses and strengths. None of them
will be led to distance one’s intention or to submit oneself to the other”15.
It seems that some of the most important factors for maintaining stability
and happiness in a marriage can be found in mere motives leading people to get
married. Seeking the motives that drive people towards such a decision I will use
the presentation of research by Mirosława Nowak-Dziemianowicz16. The author,
based on the motivation theory, takes into account both external motives related
to the influence of social environment, the pressure of social and professional
groups, family as well as internal motives – instrumental and autotelic. The results of her research showed that among external factors influencing the decision
to get married the most distinct ones are the family and the interference of parents. Parents are especially likely to manifest their will concerning the stabilization of their child. Another external motive of marriage expressed by the people
studied was fear. The fear of loneliness, fear of rejection by the environment,
fear of being labeled as a “lifelong single”. Another motive was the desire to
become independent from their parents and family home. Such marriages, the
ones under the influence of external motives, include those which arose because
of a forthcoming birth. According to Nowak-Dziemianowicz the second group
of motives that lead people to get married are the internal motives. Instrumental
internal reasons include the feelings such as the need to stay in good company,
the need for security which can be addressed by a sensitive and caring partner,
the need to be recognized and just to feel well. However, among the internal
autotelic needs, the basic ones are still the need to feel love, to create a marital
and family community. I believe that in order to maintain stability and cohesiveness of the marriage, the deciding motives when making decisions about getting
married should be the internal ones, especially those based on love and respect
for the other person. In my opinion those motives are the most durable basics
with the possible foundations for creating a common future. On the other hand,
relationships merely based on fear of social ostracism or loneliness seem to be
doubtfully durable. Marital happiness can never be built with a partner chosen
under the pressure of time or chosen by the belief that “no matter who – as long
as someone is.” We should not forget that a person can feel lonely even in
a family one has created, for example when the notion of being together and
being with another person takes the form of being only “next to each other”.
Marriage is a journey in which the majority of adults take part. A journey
resulting from mutual love and a desire to be together. No wonder that marriage
15
A.M. Geelman, Życie w związku partnerskim po trudnym dzieciństwie, Wydawnictwo Komlogo,
Gliwice 2012, p. 95.
16
Compare: M. Nowak-Dziemianowicz, Małżeństwo wobec rozwodu, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego, Wrocław 1994.
About the meaning of interpersonal ties...
109
is a subject of interest to many researchers: pedagogues, psychologists, sociologists, as well as lawyers and ethnologists. I think that such an interest is due to
the role that society ascribes to that legally sanctioned bond of two people, and
its multi-dimensionality and multiplicity of forms, especially emphasized in
modern times. It seems to me that today we expect much more from the notion
of marriage than the previous generations did, but we also respect it less, therefore we less care about it. The most popular definitions of marriage regard it as
a bond between a man and a woman, a bond recognized by law, religion or by
mere custom. In these types of definitions the legal aspect of marriage is mostly
underlined. For that type of definition we should include an idea by Zbigniew
Tyszka according to whom the marriage is “legal and relatively permanent bond
between a man and a woman created to allow cohabitation and cooperation for
the good of the family, so mainly for bringing up children, and for mutual and
emotional support”17. I believe the social changes from recent years make that
type of definition, like the one below, insufficient because they do not even take
into account, the already existing, gay marriages.
Many researchers consider the nature of marriage as a community one, signifying the unity between two, previously separate, individuals: a man and
a woman/a husband and a wife, as well as the unity of the purposes for which the
marriage actually took place. In a marriage understood in such way the emphasis
is put on the unity of actions, plans and tasks thus creating a strategy for a common life and on intimacy experiences and community feelings. The community
of marriage is expressed in fusion of chosen freely goals, as well as in a sense of
inner necessity, the power of love over the legal aspects, satisfaction and pleasure derived from a common life, in the sense of pleasure in experiencing of being
with someone near and in the fulfilling of the need to be needed by someone18.
Marriage is sometimes also considered from an institutional perspective,
where the emphasis is put on the functions and tasks which the spouses are to
fulfill for each other, for their children and for the global society and local circles19. On the marriage understood in this way there are imposed certain rights
and obligations allowing the society to achieve goals relating to procreation and
socialization of its members, as well as identification of kinship relations within
the family group.
In the literature we can find the recognition of marriage as a kind of social
relationship, a system, a state or an agreement based on a contract. As a result
the marriage is defined as an interpersonal relationship; one based on the voluntary choice of a partner and accompanied by an emotional motivation. A marriage that is obliged to meet with individual needs.
17
Z. Tyszka, Socjologia rodziny, Wydawnictwo PWN, Warszawa 1979, p. 77.
F. Adamski, Socjologia małżeństwa i rodziny, Wydawnictwo PWN, Warszawa 1982.
19
A. Kotlarska-Michalska, Małżeństwo jako związek, wspólnota, instytucja, podsystem i rodzaj
stosunku społecznego, „Roczniki Socjologii Rodziny” 1988, vol. X, № 1.
18
110
Maja PIOTROWSKA
The review of the definitions of a marriage, based on the academic literature, shows the multitude of opportunities for recognition and understanding of
marriage as a bond, a community, an institution or a type of social relationship.
Marriage itself is, in my opinion, a private matter between two people, a man
and a woman (and now also the people of the same sex) who decide to live together, thus creating a community of thoughts and feelings, following together
towards happiness and their own fulfillment, “creating a new and real quality of
‘WE’ also known as “a community marriage”20. I also believe that the meanings
people attribute to their marriages depends mainly on their subjective experiences, on their own understanding of everything that constitutes the broadly
defined marital life.
There are no marriages that would be perfect in every respect. However,
I think that we can analyze relationships by placing them on the scale of a sense
of satisfaction with the marriage. On the continuum, the extreme positions would
be determined by marriages described as happy and unhappy ones. The space in
the middle would be taken by relationships basically seen as average or ordinary
ones. Happy couples treat each other’s flaws or weaknesses with understanding,
whereas they admire all the advantages and accept the most intimate feelings,
both positive and negative, and the differences and similarities in their behavior.
Partners in this kind of marriage are better prepared to survive those temporary
conflicts when negative emotional states towards the partner start to be manifested. As a consequence, they are more at ease; they do not force themselves to
hide some negative feelings. Each partner has a large space for their development, so they can give each other a lot and, as a result, their relationship becomes richer21. Such couples are similarly described by Dolores Curran who
interchangeably uses the names: “healthy couple” and “healthy marriage.” However, in her considerations the author emphasizes the skills of each marriage for
coping with stress. According to her the “healthy couples” are those which cope
with stress in the right way. Those couples believe that stress is a normal part of
a marriage and a family life. They can share their feelings and talk to each other.
They develop skills associated with conflict resolution and coping with difficulties. They use the support of other couples and the social environment and they
have the ability to adapt themselves22. Both ideas of characteristics of happy
marriages emphasize the aspect of a constructive communication and conflict
resolution skills, recognizing those features to be extremely important in the
process of creating a healthy and lasting relationship.
Unhappy marriages are, as it turns out, the exact opposite of those created by
the happy couples. They are characterized by constant struggle and conflict. Part20
J. Szymczak, Definicje rodziny, „Studia nad Rodziną” 2002, № 2, p. 159.
R. Skynner, J. Cleese, Żyć w rodzinie i przetrwać, Jacek Santorski & Co., Warszawa 2013, p. 64.
22
D. Curran, Relacje małżeńskie, [in:] J. Steward (ed.), Mosty zamiast murów, Wydawnictwo
Naukowe PWN, Warszawa 2007, p. 428.
21
About the meaning of interpersonal ties...
111
ners refuse to admit to each other that they have some faults or weaknesses; they
are very sensitive to even the slightest criticism from the spouse. In such a marriage there is almost no sensitivity, it is a constant conflict. Intolerance and the
inability to compromise trigger a vicious circle of increasing hatred and bitterness
between partners. Such marriages can be considered as toxic ones. Spouses who
function in them are likely to hurt each other and make each other suffer23.
Between those two extremes there is a type of a marriage called simply an
average relationship. This is the type of a marriage which is relatively stable and
happy. These are arrangements that are quite safe for both partners – relationships which are mainly based on the routine. These kinds of marriages can be
divided into two most common forms: “a doll’s house” and “a henpecked husband.” The first one is characterized by the fact that partners fulfill stereotypical
roles – male and female ones. He is supposed to be a strong and mature husband
and father, as she is to be a fragile, helpless and weak woman. In the second type
the woman plays the role of the one who is strong, adult and responsible for
herself and her husband, and the man, being the weak one, does not take that
responsibility. Those partners are not identical, but complete each other and
therefore are attractive for themselves. Both forms of marriages are characterized by the relative stability because partners receive in those relationships
a support that in some way satisfies them both24.
The above idea of marriage classification is strongly simplified. I think that
between these extremes there are many different types of marital relationships. It
also features many types of marital personalities that in a significant way affect the
shape and dynamics of each relationship, thus making it a unique, one of a kind.
Modern marriage is based on the idea of bringing together two people in
love (as opposed to a pre-industrial marriage, understood as the bond with economic transactional undertones). It is made possible by the bond between the
two spouses. That emotional bond constitutes a fundamental base of the relationship. The quality of marital love depends primarily on partners’ personal maturity, their ability to overcome their weaknesses and having sensitivity to others.
Such love is sensitive to the needs of the partner. It includes acceptance, mutual
recognition, understanding, assistance in the development and implementation of
efforts and understanding. It expresses itself in giving and speaks the language
of altruism. This form of love is the foundation of the integral involvement of
the whole person in the marital bond25. The marital bond finds its basis in the
recognition and acceptance the partner as a psychophysical being, along with his
or her advantages and disadvantages. It expresses itself in the recognition of
another person as a companion of our lives with whom we share all the joys and
23
R. Skynner, J. Cleese, Żyć w rodzinie..., op. cit., p. 64.
See: A. Pietrzyk, Różne typy małżeństw, „Problemy Rodziny” 1995, № 5.
25
M. Ryś, Psychologia małżeństwa. Zarys problematyki, Wydawnictwo ATK, Warszawa 1993.
24
112
Maja PIOTROWSKA
sorrows. It relates to the awareness of the existence of the other person who will
help in times of trouble, give some advice and support26.
A relationship that exists between partners may have different intensity and
inherent dynamics. It takes many years to build a strong marital bond. It leads to
the internal cohesion of the spouses which affects the sense of achievement and
satisfaction with marriage, thereby determining the degree of its durability. The
factors which are important for the stability of marriage, which contribute in
building a strong bond between the partners include mainly the mutual fidelity
of the spouses and the trust and respect towards the partner’s beliefs and opinions. The notion of possessing and appreciation has also a significant impact on
the relationship’s durability. Mutual relations should be based on understanding
and tolerance for the common interest and the thought of having children. It
seems that other important factors are: the complicity in fulfilling duties, both
family and housing ones, and the level of satisfaction with the sex life27. The
success in marriage is also determined by the mature personalities of the partners, their ability to adapt to their marriage and resulting from this the tasks and
responsibilities, and the internal integration of the relationship, without permanent conflicts and tensions in the life of marriage and family28. I assume that the
sense of satisfaction with marriage is the result of a long and hard work of both
partners from the moment of getting married and during the whole life of the
marriage and family.
Lack of those factors in the relationship can lead to the breakdown of the
marriage. The most frequently cited causes leading to breaking ties between
spouses are usually the exact opposites of factors that ensure the durability of
marriage. Those are: the lack of love in a marriage or a cohabitation, mutual
boredom, infidelity, incompatibility, alcohol abuse, aggression and violence
against family members, inability or unwillingness to have children, unsatisfactory sex life, dissatisfaction with the division of household and family responsibilities, and misunderstanding arising from difficult material or housing conditions29. Among the reasons that could lead to the failure of the marriage there are
also factors related to the personality of the couple and their maturity for marriage, their motives for marriage, as well as their expectations of marriage and
a partner30. Meeting the expectations of the partner enables the feeling of satisfaction and also provides favorable conditions for the marital relationship. Its
absence causes the opposite, leading to frustration and sometimes even a broken
26
Z. Tyszka, Socjologia rodziny..., op. cit.
I. Kowalska, Historia rozwoju rodziny i jej uwarunkowania, [in:] E. Hołoń (ed.), Rodzina: jej
funkcje przystosowawcze i ochronne, Centrum Upowszechniania Nauki PAN, Warszawa 1995.
28
F. Adamski, Socjologia małżeństwa..., op. cit.
29
Compare: I. Kowalska, Historia rozwoju..., op. cit.
30
H. Liberska, Realizacja zadań rozwojowych dorosłości a rozwój indywidualny, [in:] B. Harwas-Napierała (ed.), Rodzina a rozwój człowieka dorosłego, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Adama
Mickiewicza, Poznań 2003.
27
About the meaning of interpersonal ties...
113
life. As indicated by Dolores Curran31 there is already a tool to measure the couple’s different expectations towards the whole relationship and dissatisfaction
with it. Dissemination of such a tool would help couples determine their expectations before the wedding and thus prevent any subsequent disappointments. In
consequence such a tool seems to be a more and more urgent necessity, because,
as research shows, couples rarely talk before marriage about what they want,
what they expect from the relationship and the partner, what they do not like in
the partner and what annoys them with a partner. Hiding behind masks, stifling
their dissatisfaction, thinking that “maybe he/she will guess by himself/herself,”
from the very beginning they form in their relationship a space of taboo, a notion
of an inauthenticity of a coexistence with another person. Expressing their expectations loudly, in an open and honest dialogue is, in my opinion, the key to
creating a lasting bond of marriage.
Unfortunately, absolutely happy and perfect marriages are nowhere to be
found. Every marriage has its deficiencies. Concluding, a happy marriage can be
considered as the one which is dominated by positive experiences and where
marital relations are characterized by a sense of community, emotional ties, support and meeting the needs and feelings of closeness and intimacy32. Those are
that kind of marriages in which the mutual expectations of the spouses are complementary, where none of them fake, when “in being together” there is no compulsion, where the other person does not become a source of threat, and where
both spouses feel like the creators of their own fate33.
Family life
The family is the natural consequence of the marriage of two people, who
from the moment of conception of a child, become parents – a mother and
a father. The marital bond is the basis and a special kind of a family bond34. In
the family group there is a whole set of forces attracting its members to each
other and binding them together. The bond formation process begins at the moment of creating the family. Both spouses bring to the relationship factors such
as: mutual love, character traits, a system of values and material conditions.
Living together leads to the development of further elements of the bond which
can include: mutual understanding, tolerance, trust, shared goals, interests, and
having children35.
31
D. Curran, Relacje małżeńskie..., op. cit.
H. Liberska, M. Matuszewska, Wybrane psychologiczno-społeczne mechanizmy funkcjonowania
małżeństwa, [in:] H. Liberska, M. Matuszewska (ed.), Małżeństwo: męskość..., op. cit.
33
Compare: M. Nowak-Dziemianowicz, Małżeństwo wobec rozwodu..., op. cit.
34
J. Brągiel, Więzi społeczne w rodzinie, [in:] S. Kawula, J. Brągiel, A.W. Janke (ed.), Pedagogika
rodziny, Wydawnictwo Adam Marszałek, Toruń 2002.
35
A. Minkiewicz, Więź rodzinna i czynniki, które ją kształtują, „Problemy Rodziny” 1993, № 5.
32
114
Maja PIOTROWSKA
A familial bond is usually defined as the “tangle of relationships between
family members, based on certain emotional and rational basics resulting from the
marriage and a genetic or genealogical awareness”36. According to Maria Ryś:
“[...] family ties come from the identification of the members of this community that is the family with its own beliefs, goals and actions. Proper ties demonstrate the family integration [...], and family members are related to each
other with their interaction”37.
That bond covers the specific types of family relationships and attitudes of
family members, both to themselves and to the values and goals of the family.
We can point at the dynamic nature of family ties, subjected to continuous transformation with each family having its specific relationship, full of family’s own
kind of intimacy, depending on the phase of the development cycle of the family
and the circumstances of its life. Relations between family members can be
based on a bilateral or a multilateral will to be together (bilateral relationship) or
on the will expressed by only one person (single-sided bond)38.
Thanks to the existence of a sense of family ties an individual is able to
meet all their needs, ranging from biological, social to the psychological ones,
and reaching to achieve the specified values. The condition for the formation of
bonds is the coexistence of factors defined as subjective and objective factors.
An awareness of communication with family members and a sense of belonging
to a family group, manifesting itself in the realm of thoughts, desires, feelings
and actions, is a subjective basis of family ties. Objective scope is defined by the
external forces resulting from legal, moral, social and religious factors39. Therefore, we might consider that other important factors for the formation of family ties
will be the motives leading a person to get married (either instrumental or autotelic)
about which I wrote earlier, and factors affecting the stability of the marital community itself. These are the components of family and marital life, among with which
we can mention the level of maturity of both partners to the marriage, the degree of
responsibility for the shape of the family, and parents/children relations which influence the coherence and development of the family. Moreover, what is important in
building family ties is the communication within the family. Healthy and open
communication allows for the free flow of information and emotions among the
family members, provides an opportunity to more frequent and qualitatively valuable contacts, thus strengthening the family bond.
36
S. Kowalski according to: U. Sokal, Więzi uczuciowe dorosłych dzieci z rodzicami w rodzinach
rozwiedzionych, Wydawnictwo EUH-E, Elbląg 2005, p. 21.
37
M. Ryś, Wpływ dzieciństwa na życie dorosłe, [in:] T. Rzepecki (ed.), Studium Rodziny, Wydawnictwo ATK, Warszawa 1999, p. 148.
38
See U. Sokal, Więzi uczuciowe..., op. cit.
39
U. Sokal, Czynniki wpływające na kształtowanie się więzi w rodzinie, [in:] Z. Tyszka (ed.),
Współczesne rodziny polskie – ich stan i kierunki przemian, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Adama Mickiewicza, Poznań 2001.
About the meaning of interpersonal ties...
115
According to many researchers of the family life that type of a strong and
lasting bond can be formed only in complete families40. Unfortunately, there are
increasingly occurring disorders, weakening or even breaking family ties nowadays. That is especially frequent in problematic families with a high degree of
conflict and in those in which the parents are separated or divorced. In such
families individuals are not allowed to develop their opportunities, especially
children. Their needs are not properly met; there is a coldness and indifference
in mutual relations, and often a feeling of loneliness. Unfortunately, today we
often deal with such situations where even in the so-called “full” families the
task of creating strong, durable, loving and supportive emotional ties is a highly
difficult task that requires a lot of dedication and communication skills of all the
family members. I also think that the way people connect with each other depends to a large extent on the genuine value which we ascribe to another person
and to the relationship in which we are with him or her.
Conclusion
The family is the first place that supports the development of a personality.
In the family the main structure of the personality of each individual is created,
e.g. knowledge about oneself and the world around, and attitudes towards oneself, others, as well as to various situations and events. Personality development
in the family includes all its members through the processes of interaction, mutual cooperation and common problem solving. It is the family that gives its
members a sense of support and security, help and solidarity, both material and
mental. A family tie, perceived in that way, is an incredible family strength,
expressing itself in the unity of its members. A family, functioning in a proper
way, “feeds” on the tolerance, acceptance, love and mutual respect of its members. It is a source of security, joy and happiness, care, attention and support,
warmth flowing from the depths of the hearts of the people involved in a common goal. However, it requires a great dedication and an effort in the common
creation of the hearth.
Bibliography
Adamski F., Socjologia małżeństwa i rodziny, Wydawnictwo PWN, Warszawa 1982.
Bauman Z., Razem osobno, Wydawnictwo Literackie, Kraków 2003.
Brągiel J., Więzi społeczne w rodzinie, [in:] S. Kawula, J. Brągiel, A.W. Janke (ed.),
Pedagogika rodziny, Wydawnictwo Adam Marszałek, Toruń 2002.
Buber M., Między osobą a osobą, [in:] J. Steward (ed.), Mosty zamiast murów, Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, Warszawa 2007.
40
Ibidem.
116
Maja PIOTROWSKA
Buss D.M., Ewolucja pożądania. Strategie doboru seksualnego ludzi, Gdańskie Wydawnictwo Psychologiczne, Gdańsk 1996.
Curran D., Relacje małżeńskie, [in:] J. Steward (ed.), Mosty zamiast murów, Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, Warszawa 2007.
Dwyer D., Bliskie relacje interpersonalne, Gdańskie Wydawnictwo Psychologiczne,
Gdańsk 2005.
Fromm E., O sztuce miłości, Dom Wydawniczy „Rebis”, Poznań 2006.
Geelman A.M., Życie w związku partnerskim po trudnym dzieciństwie, Wydawnictwo
Komlogo, Gliwice 2012.
Kotlarska-Michalska A., Małżeństwo jako związek, wspólnota, instytucja, podsystem
i rodzaj stosunku społecznego, „Roczniki Socjologii Rodziny” 1998, vol. X.
Kowalska I., Historia rozwoju rodziny i jej uwarunkowania, [in:] E. Hołoń (ed.), Rodzina: jej funkcje przystosowawcze i ochronne, Centrum Upowszechniania Nauki
PAN, Warszawa 1995.
Liberska H., Realizacja zadań rozwojowych dorosłości a rozwój indywidualny, [in:] B. Harwas-Napierała (ed.), Rodzina a rozwój człowieka dorosłego, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Adama Mickiewicza, Poznań 2003.
Liberska H., Matuszewska M., Wybrane psychologiczno-społeczne mechanizmy funkcjonowania małżeństwa, [in:] H. Liberska, M. Matuszewska (ed.), Małżeństwo: męskość,
kobiecość, miłość, konflikt, Wydawnictwo Fundacji Humaniora, Poznań 2001.
Malinowski B., Małżeństwo, pokrewieństwo, [in:] G. Godlewski, L. Kolankiewicz,
A. Mencwel, P. Rodak (ed.), Antropologia kultury. Zagadnienia i wybór tekstów,
Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, Warszawa 2005.
Minkiewicz A., Więź rodzinna i czynniki, które ją kształtują, „Problemy Rodziny” 1993,
№ 5.
Nowak-Dziemianowicz M., Małżeństwo wobec rozwodu, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu
Wrocławskiego, Wrocław 1994.
Pietrzyk A., Różne typy małżeństw, „Problemy Rodziny” 1995, № 5.
Rydz E., Refleksje wokół psychologii i etyki miłości, [in:] H. Liberska, M. Matuszewska
(ed.), Małżeństwo: męskość, kobiecość, miłość, konflikt, Wydawnictwo Fundacji
Humaniora, Poznań 2001.
Ryś M., Psychologia małżeństwa. Zarys problematyki, Wydawnictwo ATK, Warszawa 1993.
Ryś M., O miłości, małżeństwie i rodzinie, Wydawnictwo „Adam”, Warszawa 1998.
Ryś M., Wpływ dzieciństwa na życie dorosłe, [in:] T. Rzepecki (ed.), Studium Rodziny,
Wydawnictwo ATK, Warszawa 1999.
Satir V., Terapia rodziny, Gdańskie Wydawnictwo Psychologiczne, Gdańsk 2000.
Skynner R., Cleese J., Żyć w rodzinie i przetrwać, Jacek Santorski & Co, Warszawa 2013.
Sokal U., Czynniki wpływające na kształtowanie się więzi w rodzinie, [in:] Z. Tyszka
(ed.), Współczesne rodziny polskie – ich stan i kierunki przemian, Wydawnictwo
Uniwersytetu Adama Mickiewicza, Poznań 2001.
Sokal U., Więzi uczuciowe dorosłych dzieci z rodzicami w rodzinach rozwiedzionych,
Wydawnictwo EUH-E, Elbląg 2005.
Suchodolski B., Kształt życia, Wydawnictwo „Nasza Księgarnia”, Warszawa 1982.
Szymczak J., Definicje rodziny, „Studia nad Rodziną” 2002, № 2.
Tyszka Z., Socjologia rodziny, Wydawnictwo PWN, Warszawa 1979.
Wojciszke B., Człowiek wśród ludzi. Zarys psychologii społecznej, Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, Warszawa 2002.
Ziemska M., Rodzina a osobowość, Wiedza Powszechna, Warszawa 1977.